Article

2006-03-25 Afghanistan

Afghan govt between a rock and a hard place

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Seafarious 2006-03-25 00:00|| || Front Page|| [3 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 ..."Awarded death sentence."

They gotta (not so) funny way with words.

Posted by Captain America 2006-03-25 00:46|| 2006-03-25 00:46|| Front Page Top

#2 I read the tone of the article as the Kuwaitis agreeing with the Afghans, but recognize the need to appease the powerful kufr... for so long as their attention is turned in that direction. Not good.

Posted by trailing wife 2006-03-25 09:22|| 2006-03-25 09:22|| Front Page Top

#3 Overwhelming agreement that Islam demands the death of any muslim who attempts to refuse to submit. That islam is the religion of extreme intolerance -to leave the cult is to die.

Rahman will be killed. They have to. Otherwise he becomes proof that escape is possible. That choice is possible and that refusing to submit does not lead to death. Rahman cannot be allowed to leave either - this is also escape. It's escaping to freedom, which terrifies the MM. Death for not submitting to their demands is their ace card. Even the most moderate muslim believes that to abandon islam is to die - only those who jump the hurdle and realize it doesn't can separate their religion from an embraced freedom of rights and secular law.

The MM in Afghanistan (and other muslim countries watching this carefully) fear that if Rahman lives or escapes, a mass exodus from islam will follow. Their power of death disappears.

I love the quotes around "persecution". Nice touch - even more fully revealing about the ugly intolerance of islam. And so proudly and publicly stated.

Posted by Thinemp Whimble2412 2006-03-25 10:28|| 2006-03-25 10:28|| Front Page Top

#4 Agreed, tw. And count me among those whose anger, while quiet, is growing white hot over the last few months.

Posted by lotp 2006-03-25 10:47|| 2006-03-25 10:47|| Front Page Top

#5 lotp - last over tipping point

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-03-25 10:52|| 2006-03-25 10:52|| Front Page Top

#6 NS, I deliberately hold back from the tipping point rather than rush over it. But when I go over one, I seldom have reason to reconsider.

Posted by lotp 2006-03-25 11:07|| 2006-03-25 11:07|| Front Page Top

#7 We'll all reconsider when the killing's done.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-03-25 11:11|| 2006-03-25 11:11|| Front Page Top

#8 Perhaps so. We may yet find ourselves pushed into acts of great violence - acts which carry moral taint (like the firebombing of Dresden) but which we find to be the lesser of two evils.

Posted by lotp 2006-03-25 11:25|| 2006-03-25 11:25|| Front Page Top

#9 It takes a hell of a lot of hard lessons for Americans, and others of western culture, to realize what we're dealing with. A lost cause. We did all the wrong things in Afganistan. This was a perfect place to apply a lasting lesson for the ummah. Would have saved taxpayers billions, and thousands od American casualties..both dead and wounded. We should have affirmed Bin Laden's presence. We did. Then several consecutive hydrogen bombs on top of his location until the top of the mountain was gone and everything within hundreds of square miles well irradiated so that nothing would survive there for many decades.

Posted by SOP35/Rat 2006-03-25 11:36|| 2006-03-25 11:36|| Front Page Top

#10 I hear you and I understand your position. But for my own part, I think that the use of strategic nukes at that point would have been so disproportionate to the 9/11 attack that most Americans would recoil from any use of military or political influence for decades to come.

I think we're stuck with a long slog against Islamacists. It's deeply unsatisfying and it is not without dangers, as we see in Iraq -- we could fail. But until we are hit with 10 or 100 times the casualties we took on 9/11, or until we stop an attack that would create such casualties, I just don't see the support for that degree of response.

Posted by lotp 2006-03-25 11:43|| 2006-03-25 11:43|| Front Page Top

#11 This Abdul Rahman affair is another data point-- along with the Danish Cartoon flap-- that strongly suggests our "Islamic Democracy Initiative" is not likely to make much of a dent in Islam's violent tendencies.

I still support what we're doing in Iraq and Afghanistan; to me there's a significant moral difference between saying "It'll never work" and saying "It doesn't work; we know, because we tried it."

But I'm losing hope, and at this point I really doubt we're going to reap the kind of benefits Bush & Co. hoped for when we began this enterprise.

I think we're going to have to go medieval on 'em.

Posted by Dave D.">Dave D. 2006-03-25 11:46|| 2006-03-25 11:46|| Front Page Top

#12 Could be. But don't forget Condi Rice's assessment: this is a generational struggle. I'd hate to see the typical American impatience cause us to give up prematurely -- if only because of the effects on American politics and opinion afterwards.

Posted by lotp 2006-03-25 11:53|| 2006-03-25 11:53|| Front Page Top

#13 Assume for the sake of discussion Rahman doesn't get out alive. Assume he is murdered by the Afghani gov't or, if released, is murdered by a muslim on the street before Rahman can get to safety (which is saying he was murdered by the gov't).

What would be (or what should) be the response of the Coalition? What are your thoughts and comments?

Posted by Mark Z 2006-03-25 12:58|| 2006-03-25 12:58|| Front Page Top

#14 Mark, In response to your hypothetical, I think the response of the Coalition should be to continue the current policy. We've had lots of nasty allies before and will again. Would we be better off leaving Afghanistan to the Imams, Persians and Pakis?

There will be an election in a relatively few months. If we are to change our policy because of the death of this one man, let's do so after an exhaustive public debate and decision.

I expect the next turn in the road to be pretty awful. The death of one Afghani who converted from Islam to Christianity may be an important marker on the road, but not enough to justify a u-turn.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-03-25 13:12|| 2006-03-25 13:12|| Front Page Top

#15 Was he in Afghanistan when he converted?

If not, Afghan law does not apply.

Also, their constitution requires tolerance of other religions - now they can prove it.

Posted by anonymous2u 2006-03-25 13:21|| 2006-03-25 13:21|| Front Page Top

#16 Per your scenario, Mark Z, it would be symbolic dynamite. It will be used and abused by almost everyone.

The easiest prediction is media screeching that Afghanistan is a disaster, Bush policy is a disaster, that it proves Bush is incompetent, lol, per the current Democrat meme ~~masturbator~~ incubator. I hear quagmire memery. It will certainly put the State Dept Multiculturalists on the defensive, where they belong, but for craven political reasons. Circus Maximus.

In short, I think it would be a disaster for many interest groups, some deserving, and knock the US out of the nation-building business... something I feel is always a losing proposition where Islam is a component, anyway. But at a tragic price. I'd much rather fight that battle on other grounds.

Of course, it will be nothing compared to Rahman's loss.

Posted by Grim Grin 2006-03-25 13:21|| 2006-03-25 13:21|| Front Page Top

#17 I think people have unrealistic expectations about what we can accomplish in Afghanistan, without putting large chunks - if not the majority - of the population to the sword. We're not there to give the tiny fraction of Afghan converts religious freedom. We're there to fight terrorists. We did not give the Soviets a hard time about their gulags while we were fighting WWII. And as long as al Qaeda and the Taliban remain a threat in Afghanistan, I'm not going to worry too much about an Afghan Christian getting executed.

Is this hypocrisy? No more hypocritical than a liberal who believes in charity, but doesn't hand over his entire paycheck to the United Way. Our foreign policy has to balance competing demands - on the one hand, we don't want to alienate the vast majority of Afghan Muslims (probably 99%) who believe that it is a sin not to execute apostates, and risk a revival of the Taliban, and on the other, we'd like to save one man from what we feel to be a grotesque fate. What will benefit Americans more? Probably acquiescing to the second. This, too, is a matter of principle - the principle that our foreign policy personnel need to take into account more often - that American lives should take precedence over the lives of foreigners, just as liberals put their children into the best schools they can afford instead using those funds to set up scholarships for poor inner-city students.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2006-03-25 14:01|| http://timurileng.blogspot.com]">[http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2006-03-25 14:01|| Front Page Top

#18 "Assume for the sake of discussion Rahman doesn't get out alive. [...] What would be (or what should) be the response of the Coalition?"

I think the most appropriate response is simply to make it clear to the Afghanis (indeed, to all Muslims), in the starkest possible terms and at as many levels of contact as are available, that the American people find this kind of religious intolerance profoundly repugnant; that shariah or no shariah, we believe killing people simply because of their religious beliefs is just plain wrong; and when we see the new democratic government of Afghanistan acquiescing to this sort of barbarity it makes us wonder whether our nation-building efforts have been for nought.

I don't know that there's anything more we can do beyond that, other than taking a cold, hard look at whether this "Islamic Democracy" experiment is worth continuing anywhere else.

Posted by Dave D.">Dave D. 2006-03-25 14:36|| 2006-03-25 14:36|| Front Page Top

#19 This is a mere sideshow in the unholy circus that is Islam. How many Christians and Jews will Islam kill once the Iranian ulema have a nuke and 50,000 centrifuges spinning away, making more enriched uranium daily? How many Christians and Jews will die if there are simultaneous nuclear attacks on major western port cities?

Posted by Darrell 2006-03-25 15:44|| 2006-03-25 15:44|| Front Page Top

#20 OK, ZF, we're in Afghanistan to fight terrorists. We should keep doing that.

But everything else comes to the minimum. Every penny of reconstruction money better be accounted for; anyone pulling any shit with our soldiers, dies; we make it clear that we're perfectly willing to leave and just bomb the shit out of the place if they cause us any problems.

It would cost them, what, to leave Abdul Rahman alone? Absolutely nothing -- not in cash, not in pride, not in their religious faith. They could just shrug and say, "Well, he chose otherwise. We disagree, but we're all free men." Instead, they want to kill him.

So let's say they kill him, and we just ignore it. What's that say about US dedication to freedom? What does that say to people all over the damned world about the depth of our belief in what we claim to live for and by?

It says it's shit. It says we'll roll over for the ummah, that we're dhimmi, and that nobody can count on us anywhere, anyplace, for any reason.

Posted by Robert Crawford">Robert Crawford 2006-03-25 17:15|| http://www.kloognome.com/]">[http://www.kloognome.com/] 2006-03-25 17:15|| Front Page Top

#21 RC: So let's say they kill him, and we just ignore it. What's that say about US dedication to freedom? What does that say to people all over the damned world about the depth of our belief in what we claim to live for and by? It says it's shit. It says we'll roll over for the ummah, that we're dhimmi, and that nobody can count on us anywhere, anyplace, for any reason.

You're right - by your logic, we should have stopped Lend Lease aid to the Soviets to protest their continuing use of gulags and mass executions of regime opponents during WWII, instead of waiting until after the war. During the Cold War, we should have stopped aid to South Korea right after the Korean War because the Koreans were assassinating suspected communists and suppressing the domestic opposition. In 1965, we should have stopped aid to Indonesia for conducting a genocidal campaign, led by Muslim activists, against a large-scale Communist insurrection that led to hundreds of thousands of dead.

This is nuts. We need to fight one battle at a time. We finished fighting the Nazis before taking on the Soviets. We finished facing off with the Soviets before pushing our Cold War allies towards democracy.

As far as I'm concerned, the fates of Abdul Rahman, and every other apostate in Afghanistan put together, are not worth the bones of a single American soldier. We're not there to make Afghanistan safe for apostates - we're there to fight terrorists. We're 4-1/2 years into the Terror War, and still waiting for the other shoe to drop. The Cold War lasted 40+ years. I don't think we need to be alienating the population of a key ally in the War on Terror. The Soviets riled the Afghans up by trying to impose their values on them, and got themselves a decade-long guerrilla war. We don't need to get Afghans worked up again by trying to impose *our* values on them. Remember - the reason our losses were so light was because we did not have to fight the entire Afghan nation.

An army in occupation needs to be respectful of native customs - especially one where the main force is a skeleton force strung out all over the country and depends on aerial resupply. Sir Napier's proscription of suttee (widow-burning) is commonly referred to as an example of what an occupying power can accomplish in civilizing the natives. The counter-example is the Sepoy Mutiny, where thousands of British troops were killed after a revolt touched off by the mere *rumor* that the rifle cartridges used by native troops contained lard or tallow, which offended both Muslims and Hindus alike. And then, of course, there is the Soviet experience in Afghanistan.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2006-03-25 19:28|| http://timurileng.blogspot.com]">[http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2006-03-25 19:28|| Front Page Top

#22 We should make a trade for Rhaman, in return Afghanistan can have three CPT activists and future considerations.

Posted by john">john 2006-03-25 19:30|| 2006-03-25 19:30|| Front Page Top

#23 One battle at a time? Sharia in Afghanistan is different from teh Sharia fight in Iraq and Iran and....jeebus ZF! It's a world-wide clash of ideals and civilizations. Your focus on China is welcome (although I don't always buy it), but this is THE GAME we've been forced to play. One fight at a time sounds like a DNC talking point, after they cut the military in the post-cold war. We have larger attention spans, more we could be doing, and I trust Rumsfeld and W to do all things at once with priorities and committments as needed

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2006-03-25 19:34|| 2006-03-25 19:34|| Front Page Top

#24 The apostate issue is very dangerous to Islam.

As noted elsewhere, if this apostate doesn't die, it may result in lots of other apostates.

However, the death to apostate rule is the basis of the takfiri doctrine that allows a muslim to who has declared another muslim as an infidel or heretic or apostate or polytheist to kill that second muslim without trial, witnesses or warning.

Posted by mhw 2006-03-25 19:49|| 2006-03-25 19:49|| Front Page Top

#25 RC: One fight at a time sounds like a DNC talking point, after they cut the military in the post-cold war. We have larger attention spans, more we could be doing, and I trust Rumsfeld and W to do all things at once with priorities and committments as needed

One battle at a time isn't a DNC talking point - it's exactly what WWII strategists did - they did not set out to fight the Axis Powers and the Soviets simultaneously. The initial hope was to get them to fight each other. That failed initially, but they ended up fighting each other anyway. The object of the Afghan occupation should be to balance Pashtun against Tajik and Hazara against Pashtun in order to prevent them from uniting against Uncle Sam. If all of them unite against Uncle Sam, we are going to need more than one division to pacify Afghanistan - the Soviets had 90,000 men in-country, never held more than a few cities and fought for 10 years before throwing in the towel.

Note that Afghanistan is surrounded by Muslim countries that are now friendly or neutral. If they become hostile due to our insistence on cramming apostasy down Muslim throats, we are going to need a draft to keep them all down. Except Afghanistan alone is several times the size of Vietnam. Vietnam is what we encountered when the neighboring states were hostile. If China and Russia decide to start supplying a hostile Afghanistan via these suddenly hostile neighboring Muslim states the way they supplied the Vietnamese Communists via South Vietnam's neighbors, we are going to see a couple of dozen dead GI's every day.

I guess this isn't a problem if you envision a WWII type mobilization, when 10% of the population (29m males) are drafted and 50% of annual GDP is devoted to defense expenditures. But are you really thrilled at the prospect of personally having to risk your life fighting strangers in distant lands? Note that if we do this, our economy is going to be trashed when it's all over - the exact opposite of what happened in WWII. The Europeans and the Japanese will be sitting pretty, while we'll be facing the usual postwar recession - for the simple reason that their infrastructure will be intact, whereas ours will be geared towards war production and conquering vast tracts of the Middle East. We will have lost years of production while their industries purred along.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2006-03-25 22:49|| http://timurileng.blogspot.com]">[http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2006-03-25 22:49|| Front Page Top

23:30 USN Ret.
22:49 Zhang Fei
22:29 SOP35/Rat
22:27 Inspector Clueso
22:21 trailing wife
22:18 TMH
22:08 Snise Angomosing6920
22:03 RD
21:58 RWV
21:56 trailing wife
21:36 Anonymoose
21:35 newc
21:32 Listen to Dogs
21:30 Dave D.
21:29 49 Pan
21:26 49 Pan
21:24 borgboy
21:21 anon
21:15 Anonymoose
21:11 Nimble Spemble
20:54 Angie Schultz
20:52 gromgoru
20:50 RWV
20:49 Nimble Spemble